Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) 2016
DOI: 10.18653/v1/p16-1046
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Neural Summarization by Extracting Sentences and Words

Abstract: Traditional approaches to extractive summarization rely heavily on humanengineered features. In this work we propose a data-driven approach based on neural networks and continuous sentence features. We develop a general framework for single-document summarization composed of a hierarchical document encoder and an attention-based extractor. This architecture allows us to develop different classes of summarization models which can extract sentences or words. We train our models on large scale corpora containing … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
660
0
10

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 681 publications
(675 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
5
660
0
10
Order By: Relevance
“…In Table 3 we compare our method with the results of state-of-the-art neural summarization methods reported in recent papers. Extractive models include NN-SE (Cheng and Lapata, 2016) and SummaRuNNer (Nallapati et al, 2017), while SummaRuNNer-abs is also an extractive model similar to SummaRuNNer but is trained directly on the abstractive summaries. Moreover, we include several baselines for comparison, including the baselines reported in (Cheng and Lapata, 2016) although they are tested on 500 samples of the test set.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Table 3 we compare our method with the results of state-of-the-art neural summarization methods reported in recent papers. Extractive models include NN-SE (Cheng and Lapata, 2016) and SummaRuNNer (Nallapati et al, 2017), while SummaRuNNer-abs is also an extractive model similar to SummaRuNNer but is trained directly on the abstractive summaries. Moreover, we include several baselines for comparison, including the baselines reported in (Cheng and Lapata, 2016) although they are tested on 500 samples of the test set.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The hyper parameters were optimized using grid search. We extracted three sentences with the highest scores in the manner described in an earlier report (Cheng and Lapata, 2016).…”
Section: Implementation Detailsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although we employ an encoder-decoder architecture in the predictor component of our summarization framework, the framework can be applied to all models of sentence extraction using distributed representation as inputs, including recently advanced other attention-based encoder-decoder networks (Wang et al, 2016;Yang et al, 2016) (Cheng and Lapata, 2016;Nallapati et al, 2017) argue that a stumbling block to applying neural network models to extractive summarization is the lack of training data and documents with sentences labeled as summary-worthy. To overcome this, several studies have used artificial reference summaries (Sun et al, 2005;Svore et al, 2007;Woodsend and Lapata, 2010;Cheng and Lapata, 2016) compiled by collecting documents and corresponding highlights from other sources. However, preparing such a parallel corpus often requires domain-specific or expert knowledge depending on the domain (Filippova et al, 2009;Parveen et al, 2016).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations